United States v. Carrazco-Martinez

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ANTONIO CARRAZCO-MARTINEZ, JUAN MANUEL BARENAS-REYNOSO, and NICOLASA BENITEZ DENOVA

No. 19 CR 351

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

November 7, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On April 28, 2023, a jury found defendants Antonio Carrazco-Martinez, Juan Manuel Barenas-Reynoso, and Nicolasa Benitez Denova guilty of conspiracy to knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and one kilogram or more of heroin from approximately May 2016 to August 2017. The jury also issued a guilty verdict for Carrazco-Martinez and Benitez Denova for possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and one kilogram or more of heroin on November 18, 2016, a guilty verdict for Barenas-Reynoso for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine on February 8, 2017, and a not guilty verdict for Barenas-Reynoso for possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine on August 23 2017. All three defendants have filed post-trial motions with the Court, seeking judgments of acquittal or, in the alternative, a new trial. For the following reasons, the Court denies each motion [553][557][560].

Background

In May 2021, a special grand jury issued an indictment,^[1]naming Carrazco-Martinez, Barenas-Reynoso and Benitez Denova as members of a conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and one kilogram or more of heroin. This conspiracy surrounded another individual- Pablo Anibal Vazquez-Duarte, a/k/a Compa, who allegedly led a drug trafficking operation. The indictment named other members of the conspiracy as well, some of whom were witnesses at trial. Pre-Trial Motions

Before the case went to trial, the Court ruled upon several pretrial motions to exclude evidence. First, Barenas-Reynoso filed a motion to suppress evidence stemming from his April 25, 2019 arrest. He contended that he had not voluntarily given officers consent to search his home and that any subsequently discovered evidence and disclosed statements should be suppressed. During this search, the Government found a drug ledger which the Government maintained reflected drug transactions. Furthermore, in the post-arrest interview Barenas-Reynoso told officers that he was involved in drug trafficking and used garages to help facilitate the activities. The Court held a motion hearing on this issue and ruled that Barenas-Reynoso's consent was knowing and voluntary, denying his motion. This evidence was later introduced at trial.

Second, Carrazco-Martinez filed a motion to suppress evidence. During the agents' investigation into the drug conspiracy, the Government applied for a warrant to use a cell-site simulator, a device which can collect information from nearby telephones. It sought this device to identify the phone number used by Carrazco-Martinez. The Chief Judge issued a warrant and the Government was able to track his location, leading agents to a house and associated garage. The Government installed a pole camera across the street and in other nearby areas, ultimately obtaining a warrant to install closed circuit television (“CCTV”) footage inside the garage. Carrazco-Martinez sought to suppress evidence from the pole cameras, cell-site simulator, and CCTV footage. The Court denied the motion, finding that the pole camera did not invade his reasonable expectation of privacy and that the officers permissibly acted in good faith in accordance with the warrants.

Later on, the Government filed a Santiago proffer. Upon the Court's order, the Government supplemented their proffer and this Court conditionally granted it. Finally, in advance of trial, Benitez Denova filed a motion to exclude her name and alleged alias, “Lio,” from several of the Government's proposed exhibits. The Government intended to include exhibits showing text message conversations sent over a Blackberry Messenger Application. During the investigation, the Government received intercepts of raw data of the conversations. The raw data included the screennames associated with the accounts sending the messages and the content of the messages themselves. The Government's translator translated the messages from Spanish to English. To present the messages at trial, the Government compiled the raw data into a chart. Each line of the chart included the original screenname for the individuals sending the messages. The Government argued that one screenname-Lio-was connected to Benitez Denova, and it wanted to include her name at the top of the exhibits. She objected. Upon hearing from both parties, the Court permitted the Government to include the screennames on the exhibits and allowed the Government to include her name at the top of the exhibits so long as the Government provided the proper foundation linking her to the screenname before introducing the exhibit to the jury.^[2] The Court further stressed that these charts could only be used as demonstrative evidence.

Trial

The case went to a jury trial in April 2023. The trial lasted two weeks, and the Government brought forth various witnesses to prove their case. For the purposes of this Opinion, the Court summarizes the events most relevant to the disputes set forth in the parties' pending motions.

After the Government gave its opening statement, each defendant gave their individual opening arguments. In Benitez Denova's opening, counsel mentioned that his client met with Carrazco-Martinez, sent him a few text messages, and questioned whether Carrazco-Martinez gave her a backpack. He also referred to Carrazco-Martinez by a nickname, Sebastian. Immediately after the defendants gave their statements, and outside the presence of the jury, Carrazco-Martinez moved to sever the trials, and in the alternative, for a mistrial. He contended that counsel's statements during opening argument improperly implicated him. After counsel's forceful argument, the Court concluded that the statements were permissible, consistent with mere “finger pointing,” and allowed the case to continue against the three co-defendants.

Throughout the case, the Government repeatedly brought Agent Jennings, one of the case investigators, to the stand. He explained how the Government had intercepted the blackberry messenger communications via wiretap and collected the raw data, discussing how this data included the users' screennames. He also testified as to who, based on surveillance and other aspects of the Government's investigation, was associated with the screennames. Over the course of trial, he read various text message conversations into evidence, after the Court gave a limiting instruction.

The Government put forth evidence showing that on October 4, 2016, the DEA seized a vehicle driven by two co-conspirators, Ignacio Cordova and Melchor Cardenas,^[3]and seized 15 kilograms of cocaine and over $400,000 hidden in trap compartments and suitcases in the car. Cardenas later testified at trial, explaining how these drugs came from a garage used to load drugs. Cardenas also identified Barenas-Reynoso and explained how that he similarly used garages as stash houses to conduct drug operations in Chicago.

The Government called a confidential informant, Rudy Acosta, to the stand, who testified as a former member of the conspiracy. Acosta explained that after the October drug seizure, he communicated with Compa, who explained that another individual-“el Borrega”-would come to Chicago to handle operations. Acosta identified Carrazco-Martinez as “el Borrega.” Thereafter, Acosta and Carrazco-Martinez communicated with each other and Acosta recounted several of these exchanges to the jury.

Various other witnesses discussed the next events in the alleged conspiracy. The jury was shown texts indicating that “Sebastian,” the screenname the Government argued was associated with Carrazco-Martinez, messaged Compa about a shipment from Texas, coming from an individual named “Lio.” Two co-conspirators, J'Anthony Lara and Oscar Martinez-Galvan, testified about how their actions were coordinated by Benitez Denova, whose nickname was “Lio.”

The first part of this trip occurred in early November 2016. According to the trial testimony, Benitez Denova hired Lara to drive a blue ford mustang from Texas to Chicago, while Benitez Denova drove a separate red car. On November 3, 2016, Benitez Denova arrived at a Target parking lot in Chicago in a red car and Lara arrived in a blue mustang. This arrival was corroborated by messages. For instance, the Government showed messages where “Sebastian” texted “Lio” to leave Lara in the car and to move her things from the blue car to the red car. Lara testified that he moved these items, and DEA agents surveilling the Target saw Benitez Denova enter the Target. They also saw and photographed Carrazco-Martinez at this Target.

The Government proffered additional evidence indicating that Carrazco-Martinez and Benitez Denova met, and Carrazco-Martinez took the blue ford mustang. Later messages showed that Carrazco-Martinez started to work on the car. At one point, “Sebastian” messaged Compa to ask if he should stop working, but Compa instructed him to continue, asking how anyone could know what they were doing. Later, Lara testified that he and Benitez Denova met with Carrazco-Martinez to receive the blue mustang back, and that Benitez Denova received a bag of cash. During cross-examination, Lara was questioned about that bag of cash.

Lara then testified that Benitez Denova sent him to Mexico with the blue mustang. While in Mexico, Lara explained that individuals took the blue mustang, and that he handed a phone to someone who confirmed the...